Chung v. El Paso School District #11

Filing 48

Minute Order by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/15/15. Motion for Protective Order Regarding Discovery Dispute [#45] is DENIED in part and DENIED as moot in part.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01520-KLM
JULIA CHUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO SCHOOL DISTRICT #11,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s opposed Motion for Protective Order
Regarding Discovery Dispute [#45] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff makes four requests in
connection with the Motion.
First, Plaintiff requests that all depositions taken in this matter occur at a United
States District Courthouse in Denver.1 Motion [#45] at 2. Plaintiff asserts that she “has had
some very oppressive and unethical experiences with the defendant’s counsel and wished
to have the depositions in a neutral and protected location.” Id. She further states that
“Plaintiff requests to have all depositions at the Denver Court House so that a dispute may
be heard and decided immediately by a judicial officer or master. Because of prior abusive
experience and the anticipation of abusive, unprofessional, unethical conduct from the
defense counsel, having depositions at the office of the defense counsel will definitely and
adversely affect the outcomes of the discovery procedure.” Id. at 3. However, Plaintiff
provides nothing beyond her conclusory, unsupported assertions to demonstrate any
inappropriate behavior by opposing counsel, and, accordingly, she has not provided
sufficient reason to have any or all depositions taken in her case at the United States
District Courthouse. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.3(c). To the extent that disputes arise
during the taking of a deposition in this matter, the parties may jointly call Chambers at 303335-2770 to obtain a timely ruling on the dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first request is
denied.

1

Although Plaintiff uses the terminology “Denver Court House,” the context indicates that
she means the United States District Courthouse located in Denver.

-1-

Second, Plaintiff seeks to require Defendant to respond to her written discovery
requests prior to the taking of any depositions in this matter. Motion [#45] at 2-3. It is
indeed Plaintiff’s choice regarding whether she wants to take depositions of witnesses
before, during, or after document exchange. Likewise, it is Defendant’s choice whether it
wants to depose any witness, including Plaintiff, before, during, or after document
exchange. Defendant’s deposition of Plaintiff, for example, is about what Plaintiff knows,
not about what Plaintiff learns from documents provided by Defendant. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s second request is denied.
Third, Plaintiff requests to have her advisor Attorney Jim Abrams at the deposition,
under condition that he will not speak or represent Plaintiff.2 Motion [#45] at 3. If he is
unavailable, she asks that a non-witness friend be permitted to accompany her in the
deposition room. However, there is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allowing non-party/party-representative, non-attorney persons to attend a deposition absent
good cause. Plaintiff has not provided good cause to allow extraneous persons of her
choosing to attend depositions in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third request is
denied.
Fourth, Plaintiff requests “[p]ermission to file a Motion to Compel because the
Defendant has failed to answer Requests for Admission, Requests for Production and
Interrogatories.” Motion [#45] at 4. Plaintiff need not seek permission from the Court
before filing a motion to compel. She may do so at any time. If Plaintiff chooses to file a
motion to compel written discovery, she must attach to the motion a copy of her requests
and a copy of Defendant’s responses, if any, and she must clearly state why she believes
Defendant should be compelled to provide each of the requested documents. Because
Plaintiff already has the right to file a motion to compel in the absence of a Court order,
Plaintiff’s fourth request is denied as moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#45] is DENIED in part and DENIED as
moot in part, as outlined above.

Dated: January 15, 2015

2

It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s request pertains only to her own deposition, or to all
depositions taken in this matter.

-2-